But the real way to interpret philosophy is not to get it from "creators" or from students; the real way is to find out what makes sense to you.
You're thinking of the idea that HOW TO TAKE UP a philosophy depends on how much it makes sense to you. And indeed, you can choose any philosophy you like and modify it in anyway you like. However, INTERPRETING philosophy should not SOLELY be "what makes sense to you". Why? Because then you ignore the concept of research and study of such philosophies. When that happens, you start identifying things in certain philosophies, that the philosopher never in fact said or believed in. You will choose only the parts that make sense to you, and ignore the rest and add your own stuff. Then you will call this new philosophy the existentialism that you supposedly read. Call your new philosophy something else, and don't attribute newly created parts to the parent philosophy, unless it was actually there.
The parts of existentialism that make sense to me are what I call existentialism; I believe in no philosophy except through my own judgment. Even though I have little serious information about historical existentialism, I fill in most of it my own and it makes sense to me. Philosophies evolve all the time. The originator of a philosophy has no intellectual authority over an equally intelligent person who holds approximately the same philosophy.
No one is saying what you can or cannot do, or what you can or cannot believe. I am only telling you what existentialism has been widely interpreted as, and it's commonly held definition. Again, just like Philocrat has done - if you want to use the word existentialism in the context of public discussion on an open forum, it is best if you use the actual philosophy. If you want to use your own philosophy, then call it something else. Don't start saying that YOUR philosophy is existentialism, if it is not in fact that - you will only bring confusion. BTW, Albert Camus, like many who were labeled as existentialist, always denied that they were existentialists. Thus, the label itself is already slightly ragged, and adding your own philosophy into the mix will only make things worse.
The only "original" source on existentialism that I have read is Albert Camus' _The Stranger_. The main character there seemed pretty numb to the suffering of others.
Yes, but do story characters live? Does Albert Camus say that THAT is exactly how existentialists live? Did Albert Camus live while being numb to the suffering of others? In fact Camus did not. He fought for the co-dependence of Algeria with France, and was very active with the French Resistance Newspapers in WW2.
The stranger, like any other philosopher, is showing us a new view of certain aspects of life.
I don't think that philosophy has as much ability to alter basic human tendencies as you think it does. If someone has a natural tendency to be gregarious, or empathetic, then abandoning christianity and adopting existentialism will not much change that tendency.
Yes, if one does not CHOOSE to alter basic human tendencies. But even history is full of people who choose to ignore and suppress instinct, therefore, it is not impossible for philosophy to AFFECT someone's basic tendencies.
Indeed, philosophy does not in fact have any "ability" - only you do. But it is pathetic to see that the modern world sees philosophy as in the end worthless, and treats it as something that does not really affect us - even though they spend their time choosing and creating philosophies!
And to an existentialist - no doubt! He who is supposed to believe that we ourselves DEFINE our lives, and that we ourselves CHOOSE how philosophy affects our basic human tendencies.
I am saddened by your post. :(
